Republican95: your positions on the issues are really not that far off from mine. If I can fit into the Democratic Party (which I do), then so can you.

Yeah, I know that I'm more liberal than most Republicans. But I just can't bring myself to be referred to as a "democrat"--because I don't think I've met any Democrat in my life that I particularly liked personally. Too me, they all just come off as cosmopolitan, latte drinking, metrosexual, elitist douchebags. Being a townie stuck in a college town doesnt help either. I guess for me it's much more personal than it is political...but I think I'd feel pretty out of place in both parties...so oh well...

Your statements on euthanasia, the death penalty, and abortion (among other things) are contradictory.

I was a bit worried someone would point that out, I noticed it too. The conclusions may seem contradictory, but I don't think the reasoning is. To me, abortion is about the rights of the mother--it's not a moral issue because a fetus isn't a person. Euthanasia is, to me, a moral issue because it involves a actual person's life. Death penalty is a completely different story, the value of one's life is erased when one willinging takes the life of another.

if we allow one human life to be intentionally taken then the value of all human life is diminished

That seems like a pretty big statement to me. It implies that human life is something that should be protected and promoted whenever possible, or else we ‘devalue all human life’. To me, I think that would put that issue—protecting human life—somewhere high on the priority list.

We can argue until we’re blue in the face about the personhood of a fetus and get nowhere (generally), but I would have to think that even if you don’t think a fetus is a person, it would be recognized that a fetus, left to its own devices, will relatively quickly grow into a person with its own claim in that category of ‘all human life’. As such, to terminate a fetus is, under such definitions, the destruction of a human life pre facto, or rather, the preemptive diminishment of the quantity and variety of summated human life, when we already established protecting human life as something of a priority. I personally don’t find that to be intellectually congruent.

As for the death penalty, your statement about the value of a person’s life being erased if they kill another person seems completely arbitrary to me. Can a person who has killed another never again contribute to the good of humanity? It would seem to me that you are yourself intentionally reducing the value (and quantity) of human life under such a designation by claiming it reflexively.

In the death penalty case, we started with 2 people. When one is murdered, we are left with 1 person. You are claiming that there are now actually 0 people (and in fact you seek to imprint that on to objective reality) because the one left living lost their personhood by virtue of your definition. You have yourself intentionally taken a life. To me, I have to wonder, in what world is the intentional loss of two human lives, especially by edict, better than the loss of only one if you, as you said, believe the intentional loss of even one human life to hurt all human life?

Your positions on tobacco and alcohol seem to be a bit contradictory. You seem like a moderate Republican (or a raging liberal RINO if you ask Free Republic) but I don't think you need to feel a big identity crisis. Actually you would probably fit quite well in with a European Liberal-Conservative party like the German CDU, or the Swedish Moderates.

European liberal conservatism combines current conservative policies with more liberal stances on social issues.[1] Most centre-right political parties in Europe are usually liberal conservative. Compared to a different group of centre-right parties, such as Christian democratic parties, liberal conservatism is less traditionalist, and usually more libertarian economically, favouring low-taxes and "small government".

I'm not sure I've written anything about my political philosophy in a while.

On social issues, I would be considered far-left. I am very weary of undue religious influence on government and am generally skeptical of preserving policies if I perceive the only basis for their continued existence to be tradition. I believe in equal rights, including on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, and I think affirmative action can still be an appropriate tool, when used judiciously, to alleviate some of the inherent discrimination that some members of society are more likely to face. I see any efforts to limit access to abortion or euthanasia as an affront to privacy, and oppose providing contradictory definitions of the fetus in the law (think 'Unborn Victims of Violence Act') and various other political tricks that seem to be hurled at this issue by conservative legislators. Capital punishment should never be practiced. Prison conditions are neglected and the fact that abuse and rape are tolerated is a tragedy. Felons should be allowed to vote. Nobody should be imprisoned for recreational substance abuse, and the double standard that exists with alcohol and other drugs is ridiculous. I am also generally opposed to restrictions on alcohol or tobacco (public smoking bans, sin taxes, Sunday/late-night sales laws, etc.) as well as gambling and prostitution.

The government should guarantee a minimum living income for all of its citizens. Workers are not provided with reasonable protections and benefits; we should be looking at a 35-hour work week, mandating businesses to provide maternal and paternal leave, guaranteeing adequate paid holidays for full time workers, better pensions, etc. Wealth is far too concentrated and recent actions by the United States government have only accelerated this trend. The entire system of health maintenance organizations and endless trails of subsidies and red tape should be removed entirely and replaced with a single-payer system, which would cover optional preventative health care services as well as other basics like dental. I believe in funding abortions for low-income women as a means of offering greater access to equality. I am highly skeptical of selective education and would be open to its banishment; certainly no government assistance should be provided to private schools whatsoever.

A perfect world would have no borders. My foreign policy is very idealistic, with a pacifist lean, and it stems from the inescapable observation that people are largely the same wherever you may go, motivated by the same joys and concerns, and that the average person has no influence on the actions of their government or military. Obviously, the Cuban embargo is nonsense. Nobody should be producing nuclear weapons. The very concept of 'illegal immigrants' or, for that matter, illegal people strikes me as intrinsically offensive. I believe in free trade. Every willing government should be engaging in an active and united effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Bearing all of this in mind, I am also realistic about what sort of progress can be accomplished, so I approach my political support pragmatically (that is, for the do-nothing dirtbags residing in the Democratic Party, and the generic left-wing equivalent everywhere else).

Your statements on euthanasia, the death penalty, and abortion (among other things) are contradictory.

I was a bit worried someone would point that out, I noticed it too. The conclusions may seem contradictory, but I don't think the reasoning is. To me, abortion is about the rights of the mother--it's not a moral issue because a fetus isn't a person. Euthanasia is, to me, a moral issue because it involves a actual person's life. Death penalty is a completely different story, the value of one's life is erased when one willinging takes the life of another.

Ah, of course, the old canard about how someone can be a human and yet not a person.

So, in less than four years, get excited for the 2016 MetLife Financial U Pick The Prez Extravaganza. If you tweet a picture of your completed ballot with the hashtag #ivoted, you could win a trip for two to the inauguration or an iTunes gift card.

European liberal conservatism combines current conservative policies with more liberal stances on social issues.[1] Most centre-right political parties in Europe are usually liberal conservative. Compared to a different group of centre-right parties, such as Christian democratic parties, liberal conservatism is less traditionalist, and usually more libertarian economically, favouring low-taxes and "small government".

Sounds like you, eh?

That sounds very much like me, thanks! However, I'm not European and I don't plan on being one anytime soon. American politics are so "shallow" and dumb to me...nothing like they have in Europe!

Your statements on euthanasia, the death penalty, and abortion (among other things) are contradictory.

I was a bit worried someone would point that out, I noticed it too. The conclusions may seem contradictory, but I don't think the reasoning is. To me, abortion is about the rights of the mother--it's not a moral issue because a fetus isn't a person. Euthanasia is, to me, a moral issue because it involves a actual person's life. Death penalty is a completely different story, the value of one's life is erased when one willinging takes the life of another.

Ah, of course, the old canard about how someone can be a human and yet not a person.

This isn't that good of an argument. A lot of things are human and not persons. I mean, our various parts are human, but are not persons. I have been reading in scientific magazines and it appears that more scientists are begining to criticize classical Mandelian-Darwinian evolution and begining to the theorize that we and all complex life may have evolved from communities of individual simple life forms in a symbiotic relationship. Perhaps the evolution of life on Earth is more like Spore than Mr/s. Garrison's "retarded fish frog". So, this isn't as good as an argument and may lose even more steam as our society's understanding of life changes..but then again, evolution may once again be controversial in the future, but not in the way you may think.

European liberal conservatism combines current conservative policies with more liberal stances on social issues.[1] Most centre-right political parties in Europe are usually liberal conservative. Compared to a different group of centre-right parties, such as Christian democratic parties, liberal conservatism is less traditionalist, and usually more libertarian economically, favouring low-taxes and "small government".

Sounds like you, eh?

That sounds very much like me, thanks! However, I'm not European and I don't plan on being one anytime soon. American politics are so "shallow" and dumb to me...nothing like they have in Europe!

You can be a "Southern" Democrat or a blue dog....or simply an Anti-Republican Independent.

I would generally describe myself as some form of a social liberal but not entirely. Non-interventionist foreign policy, Strong opposition to anything that violates personal freedom or privacy. Support for the lowest in society but not to the point of a welfare state. A help up but not a hand out. Low to moderate taxation.

Social Issues:

Abortion: Pro choice. Everyone should have a choice. While I personally do not like abortion, it is the individual's moral choice and not the government's. The individual must decide.Affirmative Action: Oppose. It is pointless and counter-productive.

Death Penalty: Support but only for extreme cases. (Serial killers/war criminals etc). People who cannot be rehabilitated.

Euthanasia: 100% support for Euthanasia. The right to die IMO is a fundamental human right.

Gay Marriage: 100% support as it is again the individual's choice.Gun Rights: Hmm.. I think you have the right to defend yourself and should have the right to have a firearm for protection in the house but I think there should be stronger regulation on firearms.

Immigration: Hmm.. moderate to open immigration. I really don't have a position for or against this.

Prostitution: I reject the idea of legalising prostitution. I think this is too far.

Separation of Church and State: 100% Secular.

Stem Cell Research: 100% Support for Stem Cell research.

Economic Issues:

Education: Education should be one of the main areas of reform and funding. Support all kinds of additional funding for the education system.

Environment: Encourage tax breaks for those companies who significantly reduce pollution levels. No punitive taxes and the people should be left to make up their own minds about environmentalist issues.

Fiscal Policy: Less taxes simple ha. I am not too sure really. Lower taxes and a smaller government but not to the point of crippling the poor.

Health Care: Universal healthcare. (I am British after all)

Social Security: A total Reform is needed.

Taxation: Flat tax and a low tax.

Unions: Neither support nor oppose.

Foreign Issues:

British:

Non-Interventionist policy: I generally oppose the idea of getting into other countries affairs unless it directly concerns us (Europe). European Union: The people must be given a vote on the issue of Europe. In or out.European Union reform: Assuming we remain in the EU then it must be made more democratic.

Afghanistan: Support and possibly increase our armed forces there.United States: Neutral policy towards the United States. Oppose any American involvement in European affairs (reverse Monroe Doctrine). I'd push for a policy of reducing the American military in Europe.

NATO: Reform NATO. Possibly leave it. Create some kind of European military alliance in its place.Falklands: Support the Falklander's self-determination and only enter into discussions if the Argentine's agree to recognise the Falklander's right to self determination.Nuclear weapons: I am all for the greatest defence is the greatest offence. Support Nuclear weapons.

Overall:

I think all social issues such as abortion/euthanasia/Gay marriage is down to the individual and not the state and therefore should be legal. Individual moral choice not an authoritarian government telling people what they cannot do all of the time.

I would generally describe myself as some form of a social liberal but not entirely. Non-interventionist foreign policy, Strong opposition to anything that violates personal freedom or privacy. Support for the lowest in society but not to the point of a welfare state. A help up but not a hand out. Low to moderate taxation.

Social Issues:

Abortion: Pro choice. Everyone should have a choice. While I personally do not like abortion, it is the individual's moral choice and not the government's. The individual must decide.Affirmative Action: Oppose. It is pointless and counter-productive.

Death Penalty: Support but only for extreme cases. (Serial killers/war criminals etc). People who cannot be rehabilitated.

Euthanasia: 100% support for Euthanasia. The right to die IMO is a fundamental human right.

Gay Marriage: 100% support as it is again the individual's choice.Gun Rights: Hmm.. I think you have the right to defend yourself and should have the right to have a firearm for protection in the house but I think there should be stronger regulation on firearms.

Immigration: Hmm.. moderate to open immigration. I really don't have a position for or against this.

Prostitution: I reject the idea of legalising prostitution. I think this is too far.

Separation of Church and State: 100% Secular.

Stem Cell Research: 100% Support for Stem Cell research.

Economic Issues:

Education: Education should be one of the main areas of reform and funding. Support all kinds of additional funding for the education system.

Environment: Encourage tax breaks for those companies who significantly reduce pollution levels. No punitive taxes and the people should be left to make up their own minds about environmentalist issues.

Fiscal Policy: Less taxes simple ha. I am not too sure really. Lower taxes and a smaller government but not to the point of crippling the poor.

Health Care: Universal healthcare. (I am British after all)

Social Security: A total Reform is needed.

Taxation: Flat tax and a low tax.

Unions: Neither support nor oppose.

Foreign Issues:

British:

Non-Interventionist policy: I generally oppose the idea of getting into other countries affairs unless it directly concerns us (Europe). European Union: The people must be given a vote on the issue of Europe. In or out.European Union reform: Assuming we remain in the EU then it must be made more democratic.

Afghanistan: Support and possibly increase our armed forces there.United States: Neutral policy towards the United States. Oppose any American involvement in European affairs (reverse Monroe Doctrine). I'd push for a policy of reducing the American military in Europe.

NATO: Reform NATO. Possibly leave it. Create some kind of European military alliance in its place.Falklands: Support the Falklander's self-determination and only enter into discussions if the Argentine's agree to recognise the Falklander's right to self determination.Nuclear weapons: I am all for the greatest defence is the greatest offence. Support Nuclear weapons.

Overall:

I think all social issues such as abortion/euthanasia/Gay marriage is down to the individual and not the state and therefore should be legal. Individual moral choice not an authoritarian government telling people what they cannot do all of the time.

You are probably a very moderate libertarian Independent. My guess is that if you were voting in the US in 2008, you would have been getting ready to vote for McCain until he tapped Palin and then you would have voted for Obama or wouldn't have voted. Now, you are in the same situation. If someone like Huntsman or Johnson gets it, you will vote against Obama. If a Romney or Pawlenty gets it, you might consider voting for them and then not vote or you might vote for Obama because of Obamacare. If someone like Palin or Bachmann get it, you would probably vote for Obama.

You are probably a very moderate libertarian Independent. My guess is that if you were voting in the US in 2008, you would have been getting ready to vote for McCain until he tapped Palin and then you would have voted for Obama or wouldn't have voted. Now, you are in the same situation. If someone like Huntsman or Johnson gets it, you will vote against Obama. If a Romney or Pawlenty gets it, you might consider voting for them and then not vote or you might vote for Obama because of Obamacare. If someone like Palin or Bachmann get it, you would probably vote for Obama.

Thank you. That was incredibly informative. I knew I was somewhere between a libertarian and social liberal but I wasn't sure. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Your statements on euthanasia, the death penalty, and abortion (among other things) are contradictory.

I was a bit worried someone would point that out, I noticed it too. The conclusions may seem contradictory, but I don't think the reasoning is. To me, abortion is about the rights of the mother--it's not a moral issue because a fetus isn't a person. Euthanasia is, to me, a moral issue because it involves a actual person's life. Death penalty is a completely different story, the value of one's life is erased when one willinging takes the life of another.

Ah, of course, the old canard about how someone can be a human and yet not a person.

This isn't that good of an argument. A lot of things are human and not persons. I mean, our various parts are human, but are not persons. I have been reading in scientific magazines and it appears that more scientists are begining to criticize classical Mandelian-Darwinian evolution and begining to the theorize that we and all complex life may have evolved from communities of individual simple life forms in a symbiotic relationship. Perhaps the evolution of life on Earth is more like Spore than Mr/s. Garrison's "retarded fish frog". So, this isn't as good as an argument and may lose even more steam as our society's understanding of life changes..but then again, evolution may once again be controversial in the future, but not in the way you may think.

Well, that's the other problem with this point of view. A fetus is not an organ or part of the body, but a separate life, a separate body, with its own genetic makeup. I'll rephrase: no individual can be both a human being and not a person. A person is a human being, especially as distinguished from an animal or thing. If it's a human (which it is), it must be a person also.

So, in less than four years, get excited for the 2016 MetLife Financial U Pick The Prez Extravaganza. If you tweet a picture of your completed ballot with the hashtag #ivoted, you could win a trip for two to the inauguration or an iTunes gift card.

Yes...but I do not see how a person is in existence when there is nothing yet to fully constitute a basic person. A potential person is not a person as a potential anything else is not that thing. I mean, someone can say that "I am a potential millionaire", but that's not enough for me to give him a loan. If you want to attack abortion, I think claiming that it is dishonest is a better plan of attack than saying its unjustifiable violence. I think South Park really animates this distinction as they make fun of the idea that abortion is a violent or unjustfiable act (Merry Critter Christmas, when they try to fight the antichrist with an abortion) but repeatedly denounces abortion as an act of dishonesty (when Cartman teaches an inner city school and he tells a pregnant girl that to be succesful she must cheat and that abortion is an ultimate form of cheating)

Yes...but I do not see how a person is in existence when there is nothing yet to fully constitute a basic person. A potential person is not a person as a potential anything else is not that thing. I mean, someone can say that "I am a potential millionaire", but that's not enough for me to give him a loan. If you want to attack abortion, I think claiming that it is dishonest is a better plan of attack than saying its unjustifiable violence. I think South Park really animates this distinction as they make fun of the idea that abortion is a violent or unjustfiable act (Merry Critter Christmas, when they try to fight the antichrist with an abortion) but repeatedly denounces abortion as an act of dishonesty (when Cartman teaches an inner city school and he tells a pregnant girl that to be succesful she must cheat and that abortion is an ultimate form of cheating)

So, in less than four years, get excited for the 2016 MetLife Financial U Pick The Prez Extravaganza. If you tweet a picture of your completed ballot with the hashtag #ivoted, you could win a trip for two to the inauguration or an iTunes gift card.

Your statements on euthanasia, the death penalty, and abortion (among other things) are contradictory.

Whoop-de-doo! Not all of political beliefs are internally consistent with one another...that makes me just like 95 percent of all other Americans...

Hooray for cognitive dissonance? I think that's the first time I've seen someone on here try to justify holding mutually exclusive thoughts simultaneously. And comparing yourself to the politically uneducated masses? Way to lower the bar for yourself...

Your statements on euthanasia, the death penalty, and abortion (among other things) are contradictory.

Whoop-de-doo! Not all of political beliefs are internally consistent with one another...that makes me just like 95 percent of all other Americans...

Hooray for cognitive dissonance? I think that's the first time I've seen someone on here try to justify holding mutually exclusive thoughts simultaneously. And comparing yourself to the politically uneducated masses? Way to lower the bar for yourself...

Well, some people believe that "respecting life" could mean supporting a moratorium on the Death Penalty and protecting Roe v. Wade on the grounds that protecting all realised life that isn't a direct threat to another life needs protecting but that protecting potential life would lower the value of human life to the level of the chemical reaction that is human conception. A person could say that life is more than a simple chemical reaction lest people be a commodity to be bought and sold.

Conversely a person could be opposed to abortion and PAS yet be supportive of preemptive war and the death penalty on the grounds that even the most simple chemical reaction that starts human life is holy but the power of the state, when legitimized by constitutional due process and powers, is more powerful than any one human life.

R95 might simply think that human life should be respected within the frame of current legal tradition. That tradition is that life starts at birth or sometime during pregnancy and after conception and that the Federal Government and the states have the right to take a life if they legitimately meet their substantive and procedural burdens.

Tradition might not be abstract enough for people, but some people think things are the way they are for a reason.

Yes...but I do not see how a person is in existence when there is nothing yet to fully constitute a basic person. A potential person is not a person as a potential anything else is not that thing. I mean, someone can say that "I am a potential millionaire", but that's not enough for me to give him a loan. If you want to attack abortion, I think claiming that it is dishonest is a better plan of attack than saying its unjustifiable violence. I think South Park really animates this distinction as they make fun of the idea that abortion is a violent or unjustfiable act (Merry Critter Christmas, when they try to fight the antichrist with an abortion) but repeatedly denounces abortion as an act of dishonesty (when Cartman teaches an inner city school and he tells a pregnant girl that to be succesful she must cheat and that abortion is an ultimate form of cheating)

...

There is no such thing as a "potential person".

Sounds more like a belief than a fact...is there a potential anything?

Your statements on euthanasia, the death penalty, and abortion (among other things) are contradictory.

Whoop-de-doo! Not all of political beliefs are internally consistent with one another...that makes me just like 95 percent of all other Americans...

Hooray for cognitive dissonance? I think that's the first time I've seen someone on here try to justify holding mutually exclusive thoughts simultaneously. And comparing yourself to the politically uneducated masses? Way to lower the bar for yourself...

Well, some people believe that "respecting life" could mean supporting a moratorium on the Death Penalty and protecting Roe v. Wade on the grounds that protecting all realised life that isn't a direct threat to another life needs protecting but that protecting potential life would lower the value of human life to the level of the chemical reaction that is human conception. A person could say that life is more than a simple chemical reaction lest people be a commodity to be bought and sold.

So we protect something as fundamental as life by making the number of phenomena the category applies to arbitrarily limited because to be inclusive would diminish the whole? That’s a pretty nasty and regressive attitude if you ask me, and one that’s at the root of a whole host of terrible things. In what world does declaring someone ‘not a person’ ever improve the dignity and value of life? Additionally, describing a fetus as merely a ‘simple chemical reaction’ is pretty baseless, and, worse, a moot point altogether unless you can show me the point in which a fetus/baby/person becomes more than a ‘simple chemical reaction’.

Quote

Conversely a person could be opposed to abortion and PAS yet be supportive of preemptive war and the death penalty on the grounds that even the most simple chemical reaction that starts human life is holy but the power of the state, when legitimized by constitutional due process and powers, is more powerful than any one human life.

What kind of a person believes that something that is wrong magically becomes right if it is enshrined by the law of a government? Certainly not someone who actually cares about human life as an issue.

Quote

R95 might simply think that human life should be respected within the frame of current legal tradition. That tradition is that life starts at birth or sometime during pregnancy and after conception and that the Federal Government and the states have the right to take a life if they legitimately meet their substantive and procedural burdens.

Tradition might not be abstract enough for people, but some people think things are the way they are for a reason.

This argument makes even less sense than arguing against abortion from the standpoint of ‘tradition’, whatever that means.

I am very socially conservative and that more or less defines my political outlook. However, if I ever were to run for office I would not run on social issues because I think running for office should be treated more as a job interview than a place for grandstanding. Rather, I would emphasize a center-right economic approach of balancing the budget and seeking consensus whenever possible. My foreign policy views are more vague and I am still seeking out an identity on that front.

Social Issues:Abortion: I am pro-life, even in the case or rape or incest. I believe abortion is murder. This is the single greatest issue I base my vote on for national elections.

Death Penalty: I believe it is only morally justifiable to take a life if doing so it required to ensure the health and safety of others. In virtually all cases in the US, I believe capital punishment is an instrument of revenge rather than justice.

Drugs: I vehemently oppose any further legalization efforts because I think doing so will just cause more people to use drugs. I would like to see the drinking age either changed or enforced.

Euthanasia: I believe that human life has a certain value that cannot be compromised out of depression and selfishness. I do not accept the idea that other people are not harmed by a suicide. The legality is largely unimportant but I would like to see it remain illegal in all forms.

Gay Marriage: I think the entire reason marriage has a place in civil society is because it is the traditional environment to produce and raise children. I think legal recognition of marriage is a form government social intervention for the purpose of promoting an environment to produce and raise children. Gay relationships are clearly incapable of producing children, so no governmental recognition is necessary. That being said, I don’t think the government should go around and look for sterile people or anything of that sort.

Gun Rights: I think people should be allowed to own and carry guns with proper background checks. I think it should be illegal to carry a gun under the influence of alcohol.

Immigration: We are a nation of immigrants and immigration should be encouraged by raising the number of people we let into this country legally. I support a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants current in the US, provided they have no criminal background and have a job while giving preferential treatment to those with families. However, I don’t believe this alone is enough without better border enforcement in the future.

Prostitution: It is disgusting and should remain illegal where it is currently illegal. It is not the answer to economic desperation.

Separation of Church and State: I believe that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” should be taken to mean that Congress cannot favor one religion over another or force people to join a particular religion. I think this is an area where the government should not be very involved, but that the level of secularization currently being discussed (ie. Deleting “Under God” from the Pledge of Alligence) is asinine.

Stem Cell Research: I support adult stem cell research and oppose embryonic as it is currently practiced. A professor (who does embryonic stem cell research) told me once that we could get embryonic stem cells from live embryos inside their mother rather than aborted embryos if we really wanted to but that this is not the way research is currently conducted. If this practice was changed to remove abortion from the equation, I would support it. Just to note, I do not support outlawing embryonic stem cell research as practiced, but would not like to see government funding of it. This is a funding issue, not a law issue.

Economic Issues: Affirmative Action: I consider this an economic issue rather than a social one and am more or less neutral on it.

Education: Education is mainly a state issue and one that no blanket nation policy can be effective on. I think that classroom size has a greater effect on quality and success than does technology or textbook quality, or the building itself. The necessary components to a good education are: parent who discipline their children, students who want to learn, and a qualified teacher who cares.

Environment: The environment can best be approached by researching better, more cost-effective technologies to address environment problems. The strictness of the EPA is both a blessing and a curse, since it helps to improve American quality of life but also hurts businesses.

Fiscal Policy: I think that Ricardian Equivalence is correct, such that increased spending today is just a way of stealing from tomorrow.

Health Care: I support a fully private healthcare system with a safety net for those who cannot afford it.

Social Security: Something that will end long before I see a dime.

Taxation: Taxes should be kept as low as reasonably possible to promote economic growth; however, they must be raised now, in addition to spending cuts, to avoid budgetary disaster.

Unions: This is a personal issue for me since my mother is a union member who went on strike when I was in high school. Thus, I do think union have an important place in American society although I dislike the way most of them serve as blanket funneling organizations for socially liberal agendas.

Foreign Issues: Iraq: It was a poor decision to enter but we must stay to make sure a stable government that doesn’t completely hate us can be formed. It’s almost over now, anyways.

Israel: A part of me deeply respects Israel because they quite frankly don’t care what the world will think when they do something. They aren’t trying to be popular; the world already hates them. That being said, the only possible answer to their issues with Palestine is a two-state solution.

Military: I greatly respect all the sacrifices made by our soldiers and support them. I do agree that the military is not above our budget problems but that special care should be taken to ensure the safety of our service men and women.

Intervention: If I’ve learned anything from the Iraq mess, it’s that great care must be taken when making a decision to go to war. Still, I almost always oppose withdrawal in the middle of a war.

Nuclear Weapons: I don’t like nuclear weapons a whole lot and would oppose using them in just about any circumstances I can see happening. But, I also think a worldwide disarmament is a fairy tale because there really are evil people out there who want to kill us.

Your statements on euthanasia, the death penalty, and abortion (among other things) are contradictory.

Whoop-de-doo! Not all of political beliefs are internally consistent with one another...that makes me just like 95 percent of all other Americans...

Hooray for cognitive dissonance? I think that's the first time I've seen someone on here try to justify holding mutually exclusive thoughts simultaneously. And comparing yourself to the politically uneducated masses? Way to lower the bar for yourself...

Well, some people believe that "respecting life" could mean supporting a moratorium on the Death Penalty and protecting Roe v. Wade on the grounds that protecting all realised life that isn't a direct threat to another life needs protecting but that protecting potential life would lower the value of human life to the level of the chemical reaction that is human conception. A person could say that life is more than a simple chemical reaction lest people be a commodity to be bought and sold.

So we protect something as fundamental as life by making the number of phenomena the category applies to arbitrarily limited because to be inclusive would diminish the whole? That’s a pretty nasty and regressive attitude if you ask me, and one that’s at the root of a whole host of terrible things. In what world does declaring someone ‘not a person’ ever improve the dignity and value of life? Additionally, describing a fetus as merely a ‘simple chemical reaction’ is pretty baseless, and, worse, a moot point altogether unless you can show me the point in which a fetus/baby/person becomes more than a ‘simple chemical reaction’.

Quote

Conversely a person could be opposed to abortion and PAS yet be supportive of preemptive war and the death penalty on the grounds that even the most simple chemical reaction that starts human life is holy but the power of the state, when legitimized by constitutional due process and powers, is more powerful than any one human life.

What kind of a person believes that something that is wrong magically becomes right if it is enshrined by the law of a government? Certainly not someone who actually cares about human life as an issue.

Quote

R95 might simply think that human life should be respected within the frame of current legal tradition. That tradition is that life starts at birth or sometime during pregnancy and after conception and that the Federal Government and the states have the right to take a life if they legitimately meet their substantive and procedural burdens.

Tradition might not be abstract enough for people, but some people think things are the way they are for a reason.

This argument makes even less sense than arguing against abortion from the standpoint of ‘tradition’, whatever that means.

Easy. Should animals be treated the same as people? What about robots and computers that have very good AI? What if those robots use some human tissue to operate in the future? ..and its a good point to question what makes a person a person if its not just self-replicating DNA...but is it really a good idea to make that the sole criteria?

...and a lot of people base tradition off of what's right and wrong. For example, what was the father of conservatism, Edmound Burke's philosophy in the application of tradition? What is the role of tradition?

If someone is just going to get upset and call someone "cognitively dissonant", "nasty" and "regressive" because other people may think a certain way or other people think other people think a certain way, what is that person really trying to say?

Perhaps part of it is that being from Ohio, immigration is pretty much irrelevent as a political issue. I honestly don't think I've ever even considered it when voting. We haven't had significant immigration to this state in over 50 years, especially in Northern Ohio where I am from.